Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Heuh0/Userboxes/American terrorism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Per strong consensus (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Heuh0/Userboxes/American terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This is inflammatory content regarding a specific country or nationality. WP:UBCR does not allow propaganda, advocacy, or opinion pieces on politics. WP:POLEMIC does not allow inflammatory content in userspace. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I mean, they’re not wrong, but this is clearly a polemic that doesn’t belong on WP. Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We allow latitude for some political opinions on Wikipedia userspace. This comes across as ragpicking.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but encourage increased detail. The US has, for decades, become extraordinarily practiced in illegal international extrajudicial killings. Eg Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri. There is the angle that these killings are done for impact on general populaces, and this makes it state-sponsored terrorism. The perceivable censorship of this opinion is far worse than the nominator’s concerns. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unnecessarily (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would guess this is sometimes used satirically. In the cases where it isn't, well it isn't wrong - the US has done illegal extrajudicial killings, all over the world, for decades. Cryorett (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Just plain anti-US propoganda. Wording matters too: a user might be allowed to "believe" that US is the leading terrorist organisation, but what did they mean by "recognise"? It's not like some "sun rises in the east"-type universal truth. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's common puffery in userboxes to use words like "knows", "recognizes", or "understands" as opposed to "believes". I think that part isn't really an issue. And I don't necessarily think it's strictly propaganda either. Do anti-US organizations peddle this belief? Yes, but it's no more a propaganda statement than "Support The Troops", which I don't think anyone would oppose someone having on their userpage. (I know, I know, WP:WAX.) 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s a fixable problem. Dronebogus (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Heuh0: Any thoughts on this above thread? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the amendment by Knowledgekid87 removes any possible room for classifying this as opinionated or otherwise interpretative i.e. perhaps the original wording 'leading' terrorist state is difficult to quantify (at least agreeably); however in its current form its quite an objective truth. DocHeuh (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (disclaimer: I created the box, but have been invited to comment) Not inflammatory in the slightest (or controversial for that matter); simply a characterisation in accordance with the standardised definition of the term as used by the US. DocHeuh (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I made a slight adjustment with the wording which does not impact the userbox statement. There is well documented historical history to back up the claim as has already been said. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd like to remind some of the previous commenters that whether you personally agree with disruptive content is completely irrelevant to XfD discussions, and arguments based on that generally aren't considered when determining consensus. This is a discussion of whether it violates policies and guidelines, such as WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POLEMIC, or WP:UBCR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The latter two are actually project guidelines which state at the top: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The policy WP:SOAPBOX could then be discussed, but if that does apply here then I suggest a whole RfC on the matter. Clearly certain userboxes are being kept which could fall under this policy, this is why editors are going by how they feel about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Knowledgekid87 above, who says that there are exceptions to guidelines. Moreover, as has been established with the last JRSpriggs MfD, not every policy has to be strictly adhered to. We're not in a court of law. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Carpet-bomb it with cluster munitions, oops, it's userbox, not Yugoslav town or Vietnamese village, so I mean Keep per WaltCip. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 17:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I question the taste of that attempt at humor. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.